Olwoch v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1272
GINA OLWOCH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-1898
GINA OLWOCH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-727-129)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
No. 05-1272, Rachel S. Ullman, JOHNSON, YANG & ULLMAN, P.C.,
Wheaton, Maryland; No. 05-1898, Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Gina Olwoch,
a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of two
separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”):
(1) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of
her application for cancellation of removal; and (2) denying her
motion to reopen immigration proceedings to apply for adjustment of
status.
Based on our review of the record, we find that
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding that
Olwoch gave false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an
immigration benefit and is therefore statutorily barred from
establishing the requisite good moral character necessary for a
grant of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6) (2000)
(“No person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good
moral character who, during the period for which good moral
character is required to be established, is, or was one who has
given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits
under this chapter.”); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b(b)(1) (West Supp. 2005)
(setting forth requirements for cancellation of removal for
nonpermanent residents). Contrary to Olwoch’s assertions, we find
no evidence to suggest that the immigration judge failed to make
the necessary findings regarding her subjective intent in
- 3 -
misrepresenting that she had no children. We therefore deny the
petition for review in No. 05-1272.
Additionally, our review of the record reveals that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Olwoch’s motion to
reopen immigration proceedings. We therefore deny the petition for
review in No. 05-1898 for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Olwoch, No. A72-727-129 (B.I.A. July 22, 2005).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 4 -